FROM

Using non-animal testing methods is the only
way that the EPA can get information about these chemicals in a short period of
time-a few weeks as opposed to years. Without such sophisticated methods, the
EPA would have to rely on crude and cruel animal toxicity tests that date back
to the 1930s, and we would be waiting years to know anything at all about these
chemicals. Considering the dire conditions of the region, waiting years for an
answer is simply not an option.

If anyone out there is still wondering about the superiority of alternatives
to animal tests, look no further than what is happening right now in the Gulf of
Mexico. In its efforts to assist the devastated region, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is saving time, money, and the lives of countless
animals-those suffering in laboratories-by using efficient and effective
non-animal methods to study the endocrine effects of chemical dispersants that
could be used to clean up the oil gusher.

In fact, using non-animal testing methods is the only way that the EPA can
get information about these chemicals in a short period of time-a few weeks as
opposed to years. Without such sophisticated methods, the EPA would have to rely
on crude and cruel animal toxicity tests that date back to the 1930s, and we
would be waiting years to know anything at all about these chemicals.
Considering the dire conditions of the region, waiting years for an answer is
simply not an option.

The modern in vitro tests that the EPA has on hand to study the endocrine
effects of eight oil spill dispersants are rapid and automated, in contrast to
what the EPA calls “time consuming and expensive” animal tests. Testing one
chemical on animals can cost millions, versus the EPA’s estimated $20,000 using
in vitro testing. And while cost considerations are important, turn-around time
is even more essential as ecosystems totter on the brink of disaster. The EPA
states that, on average, it would take a researcher “eight hours a day, five
days a week, for 12 years” to conduct these studies using traditional animal
tests. The computer-driven in vitro tests deliver results in three days. The EPA
has already completed the first round of toxicity testing on these dispersants.

The situation in the Gulf highlights the necessity of toxicology testing
reform. Most of the tests used in standard chemical screening today were
developed in the 1930s, ’40s, and ’50s. They are heavily reliant on animals, are
slow and costly, and have yielded inaccurate information about the effects of
chemicals on humans. And they have allowed dangerous chemicals such as benzene
and arsenic to enter and remain on the market-even after millions of animals
have been killed in decades of testing.

Our current system is overloaded and incapable of accurately screening the
tens of thousands of chemicals reportedly in the environment already, with more
entering every day. Scientists and government agencies are now recognizing that
“it is simply not possible with all the animals in the world to go through new
chemicals in the blind way that we have at the present time, and reach credible
conclusions about the hazards to human health” (Dr. Joshua Lederberg, Nobel
laureate in medicine).

Indeed, Congress and the EPA are now looking to overhaul the Toxic Substances
Control Act to bring chemical regulation into the 21st century. The EPA and the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) are among the scientific organizations
calling for toxicity testing methods that are human-relevant, faster, and
cheaper and that use fewer or no animals.

In its 2007 report, the NAS confirmed that scientific advances can “transform
toxicity testing from a system based on whole-animal testing to one founded
primarily on in vitro (non-animal) methods.” Such an approach will improve
efficiency, speed, and prediction for humans while cutting costs and reducing
animal suffering. As it should, the newly introduced legislation supports the
continued development and implementation of this shift toward non-animal
methodologies.

As the case in the Gulf demonstrates, non-animal testing is the stuff of
science-not “science fiction” as critics often contend-and it is surely the
future of ensuring chemical safety.

This post was written by Jessica Sandler and Dr. Kate Willett. Jessica who is
the director of PETA’s regulatory testing division, is a former government
safety and health official. Dr. Willett is PETA’s science policy adviser.

Fair Use Notice: This document, and others on our web site, may contain copyrighted
material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owners.
We believe that this not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use
of the copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law).
If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use,
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.